Inventive step

The inventive step reflects a general patentability requirement in most patent laws, according to which an invention should be sufficiently inventive (not obvious in view of the prior art using the skilled person’s common general knowledge) in order to be patented / the patent to be held valid. In the United States, rather than ‘inventive step’, the expression ‘non-obviousness’ is used: is the invention an adequate distance beyond or above the state of the art? The assessment of the inventive step varies from one country to another.  The European Patent Office uses the so-called problem-and-solution approach to assess inventive step, an instrument also used by several national European courts.

(Indirect) infringement, Case Law, Equivalents, Infringement, Inventive step, Patents, Scope of protection, United Kingdom

(Bristows)/

Introduction In a ruling by Hacon HHJ on 4 July 2022, [here] the English Patents Court has invalidated three patents belonging to J. C. Bamford (JCB) while finding a fourth valid and infringed by Manitou UK Ltd and its parent company Manitou BF (Manitou).  The judgment followed a six-day trial in November last year. Parallel…

(Cross-border) jurisdiction, Infringement, Inventive step, Kluwer Patent Cases, Litigation, Patents, Prior art

(Bristows)/

In this decision of the Patents Court, Meade J dismissed an infringement claim brought by Promptu against Sky, on grounds that Promptu’s patent lacked inventive step.  The decision is interesting as it grapples with issues of infringement where some steps of a claimed method are performed outside the UK.  The decision also provides helpful guidance…

Case Law, Covid-19, Damages, Electrical Engineering, Enforcement, evidence, Infringement, Inventive step, Kluwer Patent Cases, Legal costs, Litigation, Patents, Procedure, United Kingdom

, (Bristows)/ /8 Comments

As many readers will already know, two new full-time Patents Judges have been appointed to the English Court in the last 9 months – Meade and Mellor JJ.  Despite the challenges that the global pandemic has brought, the English Patents Court has coped remarkably well and there has been no let-up in the progress of…

AI, Case Law, EPO Decision, Inventive step, ownership, Patents, Sufficiency of disclosure, Validity

(Dhenne Avocats)/

I can imagine what the reader might think when reading these few lines: another text on artificial intelligence (“AI”) and the Patent Law! (With perhaps: the author is obsessed with the Daft Punk split[1]). My mantra is: “Never disappoint the reader”! So both are true. That said, concerning the reception of AI by Patent Law…

Inventive step, Patents, Spain

(Clifford Chance)/ /9 Comments

On 28 December 2020, the Barcelona Court of Appeal (Section 15), one of Spain’s most experienced courts on patent matters, handed down a judgment which is interesting from a wide array of perspectives (how to assess inventive step, novelty, infringement, etc.). This blog will focus on the first aspect (i.e. inventive step) and, more specifically,…

Case Law, EPO, Exceptions to patentability, France, FRAND, Injunction, Inventive step, IP Management, Litigation, Novelty, Patents, SEP

(Dhenne Avocats)/

In the first part of this interview (see here), I already mentioned some of the preconceived ideas about French Courts, which makes France almost systematically considered as one of the last territory to litigate: jurisdictions would be anti-patentee, slow, unable to order preliminary injunctions, even not “specialized”. The Cross-Examination Part I of Mrs. Nathalie Sabotier…

AI, EPC, EPO, Inventive step, ownership, WIPO

, (Institute for Information Law (IViR)) and (Vanderbilt University Law School)/ /11 Comments

Introduction The impact of Artificial Intelligence (AI) on intellectual property (IP) law undoubtedly ranks as one of the most-discussed topics of 2020 among legal academics and practitioners. Following initiatives at WIPO, the EPO and several national IPOs (including the UKIPO and the USPTO), EU institutions have now also become active in this area. On 20…

Enforcement, evidence, Inventive step, Litigation, Novelty, Patents, Pharma, Pharmaceutical patent, Plausibility, Prior art, Revocation, Second Medical Use, Sufficiency of disclosure, United Kingdom, Validity

, (Bristows)/

On 4 December 2020, the English Patents Court handed down its decision in Neurim Pharmaceuticals (1991) Limited & Flynn Pharma Limited v Generics UK Limited (t/a Mylan) & Mylan UK Healthcare Limited, the main action proceedings regarding Neurim’s patent for Circadin™, EP 1 441 702 (“EP 702”).  The judgment is available here. Many readers will…

Inventive step, Novelty, Patents, Spain

(Clifford Chance)/ /1 Comment

Spain has a well-deserved reputation of being a rather formalistic country when it comes to litigation. For example, according to the Civil Procedure Act, a Spanish translation of documents written in languages other than Spanish must be attached to the initial complaint. Otherwise, the Court may simple ignore them. A judgment of 15 October 2019…